Corporations tend to move with the speed of a turtle... ponderous and slow and careful. I'll see what I can find out.

A small piece of additional data: the internally-generated color bars do NOT have the black line problem, i.e. they seem to fill the frame.

Because I'm thinking about buying an xl1s, I contacted Canon to get some information about this problem, and got the typical company rhetoric

"In regards to the lines on the Canon XL-1S camera in playback mode, I suspect that this would occur due to a setting not correctly done on the camera.

The Canon XL-1S is an extremely versatile camera, and care must be taken to ensure that the camera is configured properly before you commence shooting."

I doubt it's just a setting, but has anyone managed to get rid of them through different settings? Regardless they shouldn't occur, unless there is a setting called

"Put two pixels of black at the bottom of the image"

a setting? no way...no how!!

Well, now I feel really stupid. I looked on the camera, and, sure enough, there's a little button on the bottom hidden under a rubber panel marked "mess up the image".

Seriously, I got a similar response when I first called Canon tech support. First, there's no obvious setting that would cause this problem. Second, I tried a lot of things to nail the problem down by process of elimination, per my earlier postings.

I'm quite prepared to discover that there's an INTERNAL setting to fix this. But there doesn't seem to be one that's accessible by the user.

>>"In regards to the lines on the Canon XL-1S camera in playback mode, ...<<

In "playback mode"? Funny, I can see the lines on an underscanned monitor while we record. I wonder if Canon knows what anyone is talking about?

Regarding the "setting not correctly done in the camera" -- that might be true if Canon is the one who didn't setup the camera correctly. (Notice the ambiguity in the language.) I think that gobbledigook is insulting to the very experienced technicians I've had look at the problem. Their only dissagreement is whether it's due to shoddy blanking set up at the factory (which can be adjusted by Canon), or a simple design flaw (which can't be easily adjusted if at all.)

Canon really has to come clean and deal with this problem. Stop feeding loyal customers this kind of condescending and infuriating baby talk. Canon must know that many of these "loyal customers" are not amateurs but professionals with a wide array of testing and measuring gear at their disposal.

Just to rub it in again -- the SONY PD150 does NOT have this problem.

<< Ozzie: "Just to rub it in again -- the SONY PD150 does NOT have this problem." >>

This evening I attended a film presentation sponsored by National Geographic featuring a remarkable young Australian journalist (Michael Davie) who travels the world to tell stories-within-the-stories. He generally uses a Sony PD-150. His footage, often taken under stressful, less-than-ideal conditions looked outstanding. And no blanking problems! <g>

blanking
 

I pick this off of another newsgroup, does this answer any of the questions posted, or is it more run around?


"> Using Adobe Premiere I've noticed that when I export single >frames
>of my DV footage (PAL 720x576), there are always two black >bars on
>the left and right sides of the image, about 5 pixels wide each. I
>began to wonder where these empty spaces come from. This is >not
>particularly annoying, but I got really curious about where the >two
>sides of the image data might get lost...

This happens in NTSC because DV captures a square pixel (which is
also what VGA uses). NTSC Television however has a pixel aspect
ratio of 10/11 or about .91. So DV is either 'letter boxed' into the
NTSC frame, or is distorted to fill the frame. The NLE software
software I use (Vegas Video) gives me this option during rendering.

I understand that PAL does not have a square pixel either (59/54 =
1.09). So presumably you would have the same 'problem' only in the
other direction.

Even though it is un-noticeable, I don't like the word 'distortion',
so let Vegas 'letter box' my files and sacrifice a bit of the screen
(which in your case is about 10 pixels)."

Jerry, can you specify this source? Thanks,

what you're saying doesn't make sense to me, jerry. If the DV video size is 720x480 in NTSC and the pixel ratio is .91, then the effective image size would be 720 x 436 (=480*.91). That's an effective letterbox that is 480-436=44 pixels....much more than the 10 pixels we are experiencing. What am I missing, here?

I've got VV3 and will try changing the pixel ratio as you have suggested, however, I think a 9% distortion will be noticeable.

Hello group,
I am not the author of the original post, I only referred to it for the group opinion of its accuracy.

Jerry Bixman

Original Post from
Digital_Video@yahoogroups.com
Author
gtreible1@suscom.net

I don't think that the differing pixel aspect ratio sounds like a plausible explanation, Jerry. It seems to me that if that was true every comparable DV camera's imported footage would show black-bar(s) and the bars would occur in the same frame position. As evidenced by reports here, as well as by the transcript of the message you relayed to us, the bar(s) occur in different locations on different cameras. Some on the sides, some on the bottom.

As far as I understand it, pixel aspect has nothing todo with
resolution (unless your converting from one pixel aspect to
another). Pixel aspect just indicates what the height of a pixel
is in relation to its width. So if you have a pixel aspect of 0.9
your pixels should have a height of 90% of its width. The
NUMBER of pixels (ie, resolution) does NOT change. You also
have a screen aspect ratio that comes into play:

4:3 (NTSC)
16:9 (widescreen)

etc.... Pixel and screen aspects are two different things. The
onyl time you need to worry with pixel aspects is when you
paint pictures in photoshop or do computer generated
imageray (CGI).

Just to add to the discussion with my latest queries from Canon for what it's worth.

"Thank you for your E-mail inquiry.
I would recommend having the camera serviced at a local authorized service facility."

Still no denial or affirmation....I really would have thought that a company trying to sell a NZ$9000 camera would be helpful with issues like this. Guess they sell enough of them not to worry about the odd person asking questions...

Just wondering if anyone has had any luck with information from Canon about this yet? Tried again to get some information but no luck with Canon New Zealand.

Is there any PAL XL1s owner with the problem?

Or is it a NTCS specific problem?

My PAL XL1s has it too.

Damn. I was so hopeful there for a second.. ;)

It's quite funny actually, but I just looked at the Canon demo/promo web video on CanonDV tonight and I saw a black line or two along the bottom of the footage there also! I wonder if they shot it with an xl1s? :)

Of course it was shot on an XL1S! ;-) My next opportunity to interact with Canon USA powers will be at ShowBiz Expo in L.A. in about two weeks. No doubt they are already aware of this thread and the problem, but drafting any kind of corporate response is a lengthy and drawn out process. I can tell you that from direct experience with similar issues years ago on the XL1.

Excellent. Can't wait to hear if you can get some action on this issue.

Good luck - and man I wish we had expo's here in New Zealand like you guys do in the states!

Just checked my digitized footage in FCP from my XL1s and I have the black lines at the bottom as well.

Yes indeed they will all have it, without exception. It's a "feature" of the Panasonic CCD's used in the XL1S and other camcorder models. Since the CCD block is outside of their manufacturing process, Canon is most likely going to advise cropping down to the action safe area in post so that it shows only the equivalent field of view that the videographer had in the viewfinder when they composed the shot.

Yeah I can imagine them saying that, but I'd consider that a rather sad response. The viewfinder only has 88% coverage, so that's a lot of area to lose. I guess the issue is really only a problem with internet style footage right? If you're going to film, you will cut the bottom probably anyway to get the right aspect ratio, and if you're filming for TV then the under(over?)scan will hide the line anyway.

Chris,

Surely you jest. Cropping all the way to the action safe area? That's a hell of a lot of cropping! Besides, it wouldn't be cropping but blowing up the frame. We've found that a 2% blowup is the minimum necessary to get rid of the lines. But why have to do that at all? There IS a slight degrading of the image. I do hope Canon doesn't pass the buck on this one. Do Panasonic cameras exhibit the same problem? If so, why not just switch over to Sony chips? They certainly don't have the problem.

Yes, now I'm the one who's joking.

I agree 100% with you Ozzie, cropping in post is not a solution for this problem.

Perhaps I should clarify... I *have a feeling* that they'll suggest cropping only for delivery mediums which aren't video, such as the web, CD-ROM, etc. In other words, if an NTSC monitor is involved, no need to bother since it's beyond the action safe area. But if a computer monitor is involved, then cropping is neccessary. And *I'm* not advocating this; I'm just saying that I'll bet this will be the official corporate response. This isn't over yet.

Chris, I doubt this is due to the Panasonic CCD block... Why? Well
first off all if this was true they really did a poor job. Why would
anyone manufacture CCD blocks with pixels that are always black
or not working? That just makes no sense to me. I think it is in
the electronics behind the CCD... or in the firmware (probably
not). If you want to fix this I think components need to be
replaced (and not the CCD chips)

Chris wrote:

>I *have a feeling* that they'll suggest cropping only
>for delivery mediums which aren't video, such as the
>web, CD-ROM

Maybe. But, I burn DVDs of my material. When played on a tv, you can't see the black bar at the bottom. When you play the same DVD on a computer, you can see the bar. The only delivery medium that's "tv only" these days is tape.

Although it's an issue most circumstances (TV projection etc) won't be so bad because of the overscan, but where I see it being a pain is with anamorphic lenses/adapters. Seeing as that stretches a 16:9 image to use the full 4:3 area, then when comes time to transfer to film you'll have the black lines.

Am I correct in my thinking here?

Cheers
Aaron

Aaron,

Your thinking is correct. In fact, I'm not even sure why this discussion rages on and on. This "feature" is nothing but a BIG problem. If this problem existed in any professional grade camera, it would be sent back to the manufacturer for immediate fixing or replacement, no questions asked, only apologies.

I've experinced similar problems with Sony and Ikegami cameras. There has never been a problem fixing them. For Canon to think that because this is a "prosumer" camera they can term this a "feature" is absurd. No professional will accept this "feature". No amateur should either.

If every "prosumer" camera exhibited this "feature" I would just think twice before spending $4k on a camera. But the fact that Canon is the only one is enough for the manufacturer to get its tail in gear and do somehting about it rather than waste consumer time with futile phone calls that only yield silly explanations.

One more tid-bit of information. My next door neighbor is a colorist for a big New York post house. Although his main work centers around film to tape transfers, he's also doing quite a bit of work color-correcting with HD, DVCAM, DVPro, and MiniDV. He's seen this problem only once - on B roll material shot with an XL-1. That was enough to drive his client through the roof. After all color-correcting time is not cheap. It's enough to have thiven THIS client through the roof also since it has added days due to having to blow up by 102% every shot used in the final edit. My two XL-1 cameras have now cost me close to $3k more - all spent in correcting this "feature".

Why are these tiny black lines a problem if you transfer to film
(Ozzie)? If I understand it correctly these will get cropped
anyway (or I'm missing something here). I saw that on of my
professional hollywood movies on a DVD had a couple of black
lines too on the bottom. Didn't really bother me.

Rob, but anamorphic lenses will be different. Footage will fill the entire region and not be cropped (It's squeezed into the 4:3 area) and so the black bars will appear. Then you'll have to crop and stretch, or just crop and "forget"

Let's hope Chris Hurd can get something out of Canon. I think I might try some phone calls to see where I get.

Rob,

You misunderstood me. My neighbor is a colorist whose work is mainly film-to-tape transfers. No problem there. Lately an increasing amount of his work has been color correcting tape-to-tape. Although most of this work has been HD to HD, DigiBeta and BetaSP, a significant volume of work coming into the shop has been mastered on small digital formats (MiniDV, DVCAM, and DVPro). These are also tape-to-tape transfers, usually DV to BetaSP or DigiBeta.

The problem is that, regardless of the source of the problem (what I've been calling "wide blanking" for lack of a better term,) it is not up to broadcast technical specs.

Look at it this way - if there were no strict standards defining the exact aspect ratio of the frame, you would be seeing the aspect ratio change from shot to shot with each edit. This may not be a huge problem with most TV sets (although SMPTE has set the standard for NTSC and broadcasters are bound to make sure the aspect ratio is maintained - a cost that is passed down to the producer (I'm sure the same is true of PAL)), it does become a problem when we see the full frame as in QuickTime movies and any picture-in-picture effect.

The production we are currently completing will be initially released as QT without any frame. Therefore any lines around the edge of the frame will be very intrusive, even more so than if the QT frame were kept. Imagine we have a shot of person against a white background and this frame is superimposed onto a computer white screen. In this instance, any black lines around the frame would be very distracting. With this particular job, the client was the first one to strongly object to these lines. Fortunately we had a relatively cheap way to fix it but not without a small amount of image softening. Even blowing up the image by 2% yields a perceptible loss of sharpness.

Gettiing back to your message - if your DVD was showing a constant black line at the bottom (or anywhere for that matter) then it was not a camera induced problem but either a codec issue or an error introduced during the transfer. It's only when the aspect ratio is non-standard at the camera end, that this becomes a huge pain in the rear.

Called Yet again their tech support
 

For all of those considering buying the XL1s! Please know that this camera was not designed properly to display 720 x 480 correctly. So if thats what you need, dont buy this camera. If you DO want a camera that displays 720 x 480 buy a Sony. Until Canon corrects this problem, I'd stick to buying a Sony. I wish I knew about this problem before investions so much money into it.

Does that mean Full Frontal will have the black bar too when its released since its shot with the XL1s ?

Michael, no. Steven shot it with the 16:9 guides and he is going to crop it to that aspect ratio, so the bottom and top of the footage will be removed and so will those bars.

In most circumstances the black bars wouldn't be a problem I think because when shown on TV's they are outside the visible area. When digitised and played as coputer .avi's etc then you will see it if you don't crop, so that's a problem. If you do movie stuff in 16:9 as in Full Frontal it won't matter either. If you use an anamorphic lens though you I think you would see the problem (haven't had anyone able to confirm it though) because it squishes the 16:9 to fill the entire area.

So he's shooting in 4:3 mode, with 16:9 guide rite?

I am actually planning to shoot a project using the 16:9 anamorphic adapter on the XL1s coz I am planning to transfer them to 35mm. But since this will include the black bars in it, I think I'll have to exclude them.

Has anyone done a transfer to 35mm using the XL1s? How's the result like?
And what's the best way to do this to overcome the black bar problem without adversely affecting the output quality?
Thanks for replying.

I hate to sound like a dummie, but I've got some questions that I hope someone can answer:

The black bars, do they show up in the viewfinder?

Also, these black bars, do they show up in a tape transfer to beta? It sounds like they show up if your editing on a PC platform like Avid and Premire and Final Cut.

I am about to purchase a XL1s next week, (tuesday as a matter of fact) and now Im having doubts. I plan on hsooting local commercials and short films and this flaw has be second guessing. I cant imagine buying a camera that is going to show a black bar on all of my footage. Whats the point of purchasing a XL1s then?

I'll reiterate, I'm no expert, and don't even have an XL1s, but they won't show on the viewfinder because the viewfinder doesn't show the whole frame anyway (About 88% coverage according to Canon's specs)

well that answers one question.

Now if someone can tell me if you see the footage if you transfer to Betasp tape or if it only shows up on the camera stills